Making Information About Cladribine Tablets Accessible to People with Multiple Sclerosis: A Patient-Survey-Led Narrative Review for Healthcare Professionals.

Cladribine tablets have been granted marketing authorization in Europe and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA to treat relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). However, people with MS (PwMS) may be more familiar, and therefore more confident, with treatments requiring long-term and frequent dosing. Differences in such treatment strategies can lead to questions relating to how short-course non-continuous treatments, such as cladribine tablets, can work and how well they are tolerated. In response to this, we aimed to create an evidence-based report on patient-focused aspects of treatment with cladribine. To inform development, MS experts, including healthcare professionals (HCPs) and PwMS, proposed topics that PwMS and their families and caregivers would most like to discuss with HCPs during consultations to help them better understand cladribine treatment. The statements regarding each topic were then ranked by PwMS and used to inform the topics covered in this report. We explain here the use of cladribine tablets, which includes explanations of how cladribine tablets work, how to take cladribine tablets, and considerations required prior to and while taking cladribine tablets. We also describe how cladribine tablets affect relapse rate and quality of life and detail side effects, when they are likely to happen, and for how long. We also discuss how cladribine tablets affect family planning, fertility, and the use of vaccines. Alongside each section is a brief, plain language description of what is covered and an accompanying visual to aid conversations between HCPs and PwMS. Improved understanding by PwMS of treatments, such as cladribine, can empower them to play a bigger role in shared decision-making regarding their treatment. Additionally, the open dialogue we aim to promote with this type of report could lead to treatment choices being better tailored for individuals with chronic diseases on the basis of personal experiences, preferences, and circumstances.

COVID-19 Vaccination Reactogenicity in Persons With Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are limited data on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine reactogenicity in persons with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) and how reactogenicity is affected by disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). The objective of this retrospective cross-sectional study was to generate real-world multiple sclerosis-specific vaccine safety information, particularly in the context of specific DMTs, and provide information to mitigate specific concerns in vaccine hesitant PwMS. METHODS: Between 3/2021 and 6/2021, participants in iConquerMS, an online people-powered research network, reported SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, experiences of local (itch, pain, redness, swelling, or warmth at injection site) and systemic (fever, chills, fatigue, headache, joint pain, malaise, muscle ache, nausea, allergic, and other) reactions within 24 hours (none, mild, moderate, and severe), DMT use, and other attributes. Multivariable models characterized associations between clinical factors and reactogenicity. RESULTS: In 719 PwMS, 64% reported experiencing a reaction after their first vaccination shot, and 17% reported a severe reaction. The most common reactions were pain at injection site (54%), fatigue (34%), headache (28%), and malaise (21%). Younger age, being female, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and receiving the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vs BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine were associated with experiencing a reaction after the first vaccine dose. Similar relationships were observed for a severe reaction, including higher odds of reactions among PwMS with more physical impairment and lower odds of reactions for PwMS on an alpha4-integrin blocker or sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator. In 442 PwMS who received their second vaccination shot, 74% reported experiencing a reaction, whereas 22% reported a severe reaction. Reaction profiles after the second shot were similar to those reported after the first shot. Younger PwMS and those who received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vs BNT162b2 vaccine reported higher reactogenicity after the second shot, whereas those on a sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator or fumarate were significantly less likely to report a reaction. DISCUSSION: SARS-CoV-2 vaccine reactogenicity profiles and the associated factors in this convenience sample of PwMS appear similar to those reported in the general population. PwMS on specific DMTs were less likely to report vaccine reactions. Overall, the short-term vaccine reactions experienced in the study population were mostly self-limiting, including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and fever.

Patient-Powered Research Networks of the Autoimmune Research Collaborative: Rationale, Capacity, and Future Directions.

Patient-Powered Research Networks (PPRNs) are US-based registry infrastructures co-created by advocacy groups, patient research partners, academic investigators, and other healthcare stakeholders. Patient-Powered Research Networks collect information directly from patients to conduct and disseminate the results of patient-centered/powered research that helps patients make more informed decisions about their healthcare. Patient-Powered Research Networks gather and utilize real-world data and patient-reported outcomes to conduct comparative effectiveness, safety, and other research, and leverage the Internet to accomplish this effectively and efficiently. Four PPRNs focused on autoimmune and immune-mediated conditions formed the Autoimmune Research Collaborative: ArthritisPower (rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, and other rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases), IBD Partners (inflammatory bowel disease), iConquerMS (multiple sclerosis), and the Vasculitis PPRN (vasculitis). The Autoimmune Research Collaborative aims to inform the healthcare decision making of patients, care partners, and other stakeholders, such as clinicians, regulators, and payers. Illustrated by practical applications from the Autoimmune Research Collaborative and its constituent PPRNs, this article discusses the shared capacities and challenges of the PPRN model, and the opportunities presented by collaborating across autoimmune conditions to design, conduct, and disseminate patient-centered outcomes research.

Oversight on the borderline: Quality improvement and pragmatic research.

Pragmatic research that compares interventions to improve the organization and delivery of health care may overlap, in both goals and methods, with quality improvement activities. When activities have attributes of both research and quality improvement, confusion often arises about what ethical oversight is, or should be, required. For routine quality improvement, in which the delivery of health care is modified in minor ways that create only minimal risks, oversight by local clinical or administrative leaders utilizing institutional policies may be sufficient. However, additional consideration should be given to activities that go beyond routine, local quality improvement to first determine whether such non-routine activities constitute research or quality improvement and, in either case, to ensure that independent oversight will occur. This should promote rigor, transparency, and protection of patients' and clinicians' rights, well-being, and privacy in all such activities. Specifically, we recommend that (1) health care organizations should have systematic policies and processes for designating activities as routine quality improvement, non-routine quality improvement, or quality improvement research and determining what oversight each will receive. (2) Health care organizations should have formal and explicit oversight processes for non-routine quality improvement activities that may include input from institutional quality improvement experts, health services researchers, administrators, clinicians, patient representatives, and those experienced in the ethics review of health care activities. (3) Quality improvement research requires review by an institutional review board; for such review to be effective, institutional review boards should develop particular expertise in assessing quality improvement research. (4) Stakeholders should be included in the review of non-routine quality improvement and quality improvement-related research proposals. Only by doing so will we optimally leverage both pragmatic research on health care delivery and local implementation through quality improvement as complementary activities for improving health.